Thursday, May 31, 2012

I witnessed, in the city today, another pointless, Trotskyite-commie demonstration: this time one against the extradition of Assange. It's amazing how, during a working day, people find the time off from their jobs to participate in this nonsense (but do Trotskyite communists work?); it's amazing, too, that they are demonstrating on behalf of the rights of the sleazy Assange. The man is a born con-man. He ran afoul of the Swedish authorities after a) having a fling with a Swedish feminist, who was a sexual harassment counsellor, in her thirties, and b) cheating on her with Swedish women in her twenties. The women met up by chance, compared notes, and realised that Assange had been cheating on them both (doesn't this sound like a soap opera?) and then went to a leading Swedish rape lawyer. The rest is history. Assange managed to convince the Left that he was a victim of a CIA conspiracy, and now has them working on his behalf. But one should be aware: when a man says, 'I love women', as Assange did, in one of his TV interviews - translated, it means, 'I have deep-seated issues with women'. Perhaps he hates them and wants revenge on them - an impulse common among some men, especially unattractive ones like Assange - and, unfortunately, he messed with a woman who, like him, hates the opposite gender and wants revenge on them.

The Assange demonstration, though, got me thinking, not about sexual politics, but about the efficacy of demonstrations in general. Schmitt wrote, in his Constitutional Theory (1928), that almost any mass gathering can present unexpected political opportunities, and may display political elements, and this is what demonstrations, by the Left, are trying to tap into. Demonstrations, in the Middle East right now, are thoroughly political; they represent the mass and are pure, unadulterated political, democratic rage. A million people in Tahrir Square, crowds of thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, in Syria or Yemen, being shot at by security forces: these are real demonstrations. Such demonstrations, and the deployment of the new medias of Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, end up overwhelming the establishment. Even if the state-controlled media under-counts the numbers, or doesn't report them altogether, word of mouth will spread news of the demonstrations. The demonstration becomes known, becomes attractive, to the people as a visible manifestation of the people's power, its pouvoir constituant, to make or break the constitutional order (I am following Schmitt's thesis here, of course). The Trotskyites and anarchists in the West aim at the same effect, of course, but fail miserably. In Australia, the Trots can't arouse the mass' collective rage and direct it against the prevailing political order; they certainly can't do so with demonstrations on behalf of Assange, or gay marriage, or boat people, or gay Palestinian boat people being allowed to marry one another in detention centres. Demonstrations in Australia, particularly by the Left, tend to be a waste of time.

In the 1920s and 1930s in the West, of course, it was all different. People really did believe in fascism, or communism, and would come out on the streets, in the tens of thousands, in favour of it. Partly that was because of the extremist political climate of the time; part of it was that, before television, the Internet and computer games, people didn't have much in the way of home entertainment, and so, if they wanted a fun evening, they would go to a demonstration or a Mosley rally in a stadium. On top of that, fascism was, and is, a lot of fun all around, and that's why English Defence League demonstrations, for instance, appeal to white working-class Britons. Even though I would draw the line at waving an Israeli flag, I myself - were I to go to England on a trip - to attend an EDL rally; or, if I were in Hungary, a Jobbik rally (no Israeli flags there). But can this be applied to an Australian context, one may ask, and would it have the desired effect.

Putting that to one side: we have seen spontaneous, left-leaning (or at least, anti-capitalist demonstrations) in the West recently: e.g., the Occupy movement, the 'Indignant' movement in Spain, and so forth. These sorts of demonstrations are very much like the ones in the Arab world, insofar as they are not directed, or controlled, by a single political group or ideology (as opposed to demonstrations for fascism and communism, which were tightly controlled by a single party); certainly, the views expressed by the participants in these movements aren't 'scientific', i.e., based on the 'scientific' socialism which is Marxism.

At first sight, then, these movements present an opportunity for the Left. All the commies need do is worm their way into them, preach the truths of the 'science' which is Marxism, and hey presto, instant communist revolution - or the beginnings of one. The commies have been doing this for the past ten years or so, with the environmentalist movement, the anti-globalisation movement, and so forth: they haven't converted, or co-opted, the participants in these, but they have managed to assert themselves at these events, through fear, intimidation, and the sheer size and strength of their presence, with some success. But, in truth, I don't think the commies will have much luck in bringing Occupy, et al., around to communism.

Why is that? Aren't these movements a response to 'the crisis of capitalism'? Indeed, they are. 'Capitalism' means different things to different people, at different points in history, of course: right now it stands for Goldman Sachs, financial profiteering and loansharking, a disproportionate, bloated financial sector which wields undue influence over the governments of Europe (including the present German government); it also stands for mass unemployment in Europe and America; it also stands for monetary chaos; it also stands for Jews, in particular, the Jewish-American Bernanke and the predominantly Jewish-American financial sector, both primarily responsible for bringing about the present crisis. 'Capitalism', these days, also stands for immigration: unlimited, non-white immigration.

The latter is particularly important, especially in today's political, intellectual and media discourse. Every day, we hear a different story as to why immigration is necessary. The first is that white workers are fundamentally lazy, and that we need mass immigration of non-white, unskilled labour to do the jobs whites won't do. The second is that white workers - despite having the highest rates of literacy and education in the world, and leading the world in the development of technology and science - haven't the 'skills' to do their jobs, and so mass immigration of non-white 'skilled' labour (viz, labour from India and China) is a necessity. The third is that white workers are too old - who will pay their pensions, except for immigrants, who will generate enough tax revenue to pay for their pensions and that of the greying white man? The fourth is that white workers are too selfish, and should share their welfare state, with its public health, education, housing, its unemployment benefits, disability benefits and old age pensions, with the entire Third World.

The 'capitalist' economy today suffers from severe defects. The US labour market, and financial markets, are in bad shape - the worst since the early 1990s recession (which brought us the terrible 'grunge' music craze, and goth culture, among other dreadful cultural things). Overall, confidence in the Western political and economic system hasn't been at such a low ebb since the 1970s. Western politicians oscillate between two poles in response to this crisis: there is the 'austerity' of Merkel (higher taxes, and fiscal tightness) and the 'growth' policies of Obama (higher taxes, huge deficits and currency devaluation). Obama's policies, in fact, produce no growth, as we know, and are uncannily like Roosevelt's in the 1930s, which likewise produced no growth. So, if the term 'capitalism' means the prevailing political and economic system - and things like Wal Mart and trash multiplex blockbuster films, and Mitt Romney - then yes, the present spontaneist movements are revolts against capitalism.

The Left - and by that, I mean the anarchists, Trotskyites and small handful of Maoists who make up the modern-day radical Left - can't tap into this, however. When all is said and done, a mass movement needs a solid, unified, strong political party - like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, for instance - because spontaneism, by itself, leads, in the end, to nothing; if anything, it burns itself out, just like the New Left did in the 1970s. And the Far Left today doesn't have such a party. In the West, the communist parties used to perform such a function, and while they are (in countries like France and Italy) still kicking around, they don't attract the support they used to. (Indeed, the once-mighty French Communist Party has steadily been losing ground, in terms of working-class support, to the Front National). More or less, the 'mainline' - that is, pro-Moscow - communist parties took a big hit after the collapse of the USSR in 1991, and quite a few didn't survive. As a result, the vacuum was filled by the Trotskyite communist groups. And, as anyone knows, the Trotskyites really attracts the freaks, crazies, dilettantes, of the Left - flakes, adventurers and students going through their radical phase. The Trotskyites are incapable of keeping order, even within their own ranks, and are forever more and more parties and grouplets, each smaller than the last. Given their lack of discipline, organisationally and politically, they aren't bound to make much of an impression on the real, working-class people they encounter at Occupy and other rallies. So a highly volatile, potentially radical European mass isn't going to be led to the truths of 'scientific socialism'. (Half the time, though, I'm not convinced that the Trotskyites really stand, especially these days, for communism at all: are they Marxist?).

What of the rest of the Left? As mentioned before, a proportion of working-class French voters are abandoning the communists for the Front National; likewise, working-class districts in Sweden are voters for the populist Far-Right Swedish Democrats. Why? Well, the colonisation, and ethnic cleansing, of indigenous Europeans - by Indian, Pakistani, Arab and African immigrants - is hurting the European people, especially the working-class Europeans who have to live alongside their conquerors; that segment of the electorate feels abandoned by the traditional bourgeois liberal democratic parties, but also the Far Left as well.

If the Far Left were to adopt an attitude of resistance to the colonisation of Europe - and the colonisation of Australia by Chinese and Indians - then the Far Left would regain a measure of credibility. It would be dealing with a very real problem that affects white working-class people worldwide.

But, the Far Left shuts its eyes; what's more, it regards the Far Right, especially the populists, as its bitterest enemy. This is, to a certain degree, un-Marxist. While it is true that some of the European Far Right groups contain fascist and neofascist elements - and communism is, of course, the hereditary enemy of fascism - the present 'immigration' problem (that is, ethnic cleansing and eventual genocide of white people) is unique in Western, and world, political history. We've never seen anything like it. Consequently, there is nothing, in the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and the rest, on it. The USSR, of course, spent a great deal of time ranting on about the rights of poor Negroes in the US (who weren't allowed to drink at whites-only water fountains - you know the drill) and the white supremacist South Africans; but the present avalanche of non-white emigration to the West, and the subsequent remoulding of white racial attitudes, didn't get started until the 1970s, and didn't take full effect until the 2000s. (Non-white immigration in Australia exploded in John Howard's fourth and final term, after 2004; in Britain, after 2001). Consequently, the USSR never survived long enough to see the pernicious effects of present-day Western racial policy.

The Far Left can't change its position on race and immigration, in part, because it is following the lead of the Center Left. A few nationalists have made intriguing observations about the new policy of the traditional social democratic parties in Europe: this is the currying favour with Muslim and other immigrant groups in exchange for votes, e.g., in the recent French presidential election of Hollande, who campaigned for, among other things, illegal immigrants in France to be given the right to vote in elections (following the lead of the former socialist government in Spain) and who used a Jay-Z and Kanye West rap song ('Niggaz in Paris') in one of his campaign advertisements in an attempt to appeal to Afro-French voters. Elsewhere, British nationalists have long held that one impetus behind the extraordinary mass non-white immigration under Blair was the desire, on the part of the Labour Party, to bring in non-white voters (who, being reliant on welfare and council housing, would be more likely to vote Labour). In the US, Democrat Party strategists have been quite open about targeting 'minority' groups - that is, Hispanic immigrants and Afro-Americans - and abandoning the white working-class vote to the Republicans. This is all very cynical and self-destructive, no doubt, but indicative of an entire generation of white Western politicians - the Hollandes and Blairs - who have a real hatred of white people. But why is the Far Left following their lead? Why should they be following the liberals and the social democrats? The answer is nihilism. The Far Left used to believe in the communism of the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic (don't laugh); but, after 1991, and the advent of the post-modern, post-communist era, it doesn't believe in anything. So it follows the nihilism of the liberals and socialists of the West, who want to destroy the white Western culture and civilisation, and want to, in Europe, replace it with Islam and Pan-Africanism, and, in Australia, replace the traditional culture of British imperialism with Chinese and Indian imperialism.

Marxism is meant to be a theory which is highly responsive to economic and political developments. Which is to say, the true Marxist activist will divine the fault lines in the society around him and try and ignite class struggle and class war, the war between the proletariat and bourgeoisie, which will bring about the socialist revolution. He must, in this endeavour, take an un-biased, unprejudiced approach. Supposing that he recently came to Earth from Mars, and landed in Paris and London: the first thing he would ask himself is, 'Hm, I'm on Earth, among the Parisians and Londoners: what are the existing fault-lines? How can I lead the way for the working-class? How can I unify the working-class and at the same time turn them against the bourgeoisie?'. If he really were unbiased, he would see that the ethnic cleansing of British working-class whites - in Birmingham, Leicestershire and Bradford - could be used for this purpose. In other words, Marxism is, as a theory, a means of analysis which works with reality, which 'bounces off' reality, and tries to work off the existing patterns, structures, boundaries in reality - as opposed to imposing theory upon it and make reality conform to it. The true Marxist ought to be prepared to accept whatever he finds in the course of his investigations and work with it, unpleasant as it may be (and racialism and racial feelings are extremely unpleasant to many sensitive white, Western intellectuals).

The remnants of the Marxist Left today, of course, take the opposite approach to the one above. To them theory comes before practice, theory is a substitute for reality. This is something that is condemned, in the Marxist literature, as 'dogmatism'. Unfortunately for Marxists, the Marxist school of thought - being based primarily on books written by, and for, bourgeois intellectuals - has always exhibited a strong bias towards 'dogmatism': at times, it just can't help it. Marxist-Leninism always strove to look at reality without prejudice, to take existing biases and tendencies in reality (in particular, the reality of the white working-class) into account; it always strove to present itself as a flexible doctrine, able to respond to new opportunities and changing, ever-changing, political conditions. But, as we know, it failed in this as often as it succeeded, and often lurched towards 'dogmatism', again and again. It is because of the 'dogmatist' tendency in traditional Marxism that the Marxist Far Left can't see today's reality - the dispossession and destruction of the whites of Europe, by the anti-white crazies in power - for what it is. So, while the present anti-white attitudes of the Far Left aren't indicative of historical Marxist theory, the Far Left has accumulated a number of dogmas in recent years and is now imposing them on the present. It sees, for example, the seven million or so Muslims in Europe, not as raiders, colonisers and dispossessors, but as poor little non-whites denied their rights by the evil whites: that is, the equivalent of the Afro-Americans who weren't allowed to drink from whites-only water fountains, or the Africans under Apartheid. In other words, the Far Left is using entirely inappropriate historical analogies, left over from the Soviet, Cold War era.

(Who knows how Marxism, as a body of thought, will fare in the new world of non-white Europe: perhaps Marxist books will be banned, and burned, by the future Muslim rulers of Europe, and Marxist intellectuals will be thrown into jail or killed; or perhaps Marxism will co-exist, side by side, with a non-white liberalism - the kind of liberalism which is taken root, intellectually, right now in the Middle East).

At any rate, we Western intellectuals on the Far Left, or the Far Right, are free to use the existing body of Marxist theory in any way we like. During the 1960s, the Western intellectuals who made up the New Left substantially revised the Marxist theory - much to the chagrin of the Soviets, who published stinging rebuke after rebuke of Adorno, Marcuse, Sartre, Fanon and the rest. No-one in the world knew Marxism-Leninism better than the communist intellectuals of Russia and the Eastern bloc, and so, the mainstream Marxists put up a very good argument that New Leftism and the student movement didn't constitute 'real Marxism', that it was a deviation, just like Maoism. But, since the collapse of the USSR, a kind of intellectual anarchy prevails so far as Marxism, communism and 'scientific socialism' is concerned. Marxism can be used for destructive, nihilistic, anti-white and anti-Western purposes, or for nationalistic purposes. No intellectual authority in Moscow is going to say, 'You can't do that'.

As to why this is important for the nationalist movement: many of us look to Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy as a model, and we need to appreciate the extent to which Bolshevism and Marxism influenced the thought and actions of these men. To politically-conscious men of their generation (my great-grandfather's generation), Bolshevism was unavoidable, ubiquitous, just like Twitter, Facebook and the IPhone today: one couldn't walk out of one's house, and buy a pint of milk, without having communist slogans shouted at you. This is something very hard to understand for my generation of nationalists. One could say, for argument's sake, that Hitler's socialism was a truly German socialism, that is, non-Russian, non-Leninist, representing indigenous German traits as opposed to Slavic, Leninist and Bolshevik ones; but this isn't true for Hitler, or fascism in general. Both Mussolini and Hitler were profoundly influenced by the Russian model.

It's only radical change, revolutionary change, which can allow the white Western man to escape the present morass. That means examining, and using, theoretically, all forms of radicalism, past and present - and that includes the most successful radicalisms of the 20th century, fascism and communism. But, to apply these to the present, means that the doctrines will be transmuted. They will appear in entirely new forms. As Yockey speculates, in Imperium (1948), the future fascism - or 'authoritarian socialism', as he calls it - will take unprecedented forms.

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

There has been a great deal of jubilation, in nationalist circles, regarding Golden Dawn's electoral success (7% of the vote, translating into 21 seats), and horror from the liberal establishment (no horror, though, regarding the success of the main Greek Communist Party, which won 8%). At the same time, a few comrades have told me that such success for a radical nationalist party - which is unashamed of its fascist, neofascist and right-wing authoritarian roots - wouldn't be possible here in Australia or indeed in any other Western European country (or colony): it's only in the East of Europe that the radical parties - the Jobbiks, the Golden Dawns - can win seats. That is, the sad reality is that a nationalist party has to go down the populist route (i.e., the Breivikist/Wilder-ist route) to achieve electoral success in the Western half of Europe. The electoral schema is, for nationalists in Europe at present: Zio-populism for the West, neofascist radicalism for the East, and for Germany, in the center, nothing at all (no nationalist party of any stripe can make much headway in Germany, at least not at a federal level). So there are certain peculiarities, on the Continent, which prevent a radical Far Right party taking off in the Western half.

On top of that, it is pointed that the Greeks suffered from extremely high levels of non-white immigration prior to the election: according to the liberal German news agency, Deutsche-Welle, 128,000 illegals came to Greece in 2010 alone, and according to the UK tabloid The Daily Mail, a 100,000 illegals entered in the 12 months to February 2012. Greece's geographical position as the gateway to Eastern Europe has led to it being inundated with immigrants from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Ethiopia, etc., so much so that the liberal democratic government of Greece, even before the election, began work on erecting a six-mile, 13 feet high, double razor-wire wall along the border. Even so, that was shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, and the presence of hundreds of thousands of non-white immigrants has led to the de facto ethnic cleansing of the majority white Greek population in certain urban areas. This awfulness, combined with Greece's economic straits, has led to a decisive nationalist vote.

In short, then, a 7% vote for a nationalist party 'won't happen here', in Australia, because (what the Marxists call) the 'objective conditions' aren't right: yes, white Australians are being gradually forced into minority status, in the urban and suburban areas, thanks to mass Chinese and Indian immigration; but they aren't in the sorry position of the Greeks, and certainly, economically, they are nowhere as badly off.

Is this fatalism and determinism warranted? Or is it unjustified? In order to arrive at an answer to that question, let's consider a few key theses: we have to get a clear exposition of the problem - the problem faced by nationalism - before we can get around to solving it.

Here are a few defining characteristics of the Golden Dawn:

1. It has a mainly working-class, proletarian class composition;

2. It is a radical party;

3. It has authoritarian, anti-liberal, anti-parliamentarian leanings, and gravitates towards 'extraparliamentary opposition', i.e., activism on the street, demonstrations, and so forth;

4. It is anti-capitalist, and opposed to the financial hegemony of the international bankers.

This last point is especially important: modern-day liberal democracy in Europe represents, to a certain extent, the 'dictatorship of finance capital'. Banks which have invested heavily in French, Greek, Spanish, Irish, Italian, etc., debt, stand to suffer if the value of this debt plummets (they will be breaking the international banking rules regarding a strict equity-to-asset ratio, which I won't detail here); certainly, they will see a loss on the value of that debt, if the governments miss out on one or two or three of their regular interest payments. Debts, such as mortgages, are assets for a bank, and just the way that the value of a mortgage (for a bank) will fall, if the borrower starts missing out on his payments, so will the value of a French government bond fall if the French government misses on its payments. Such is the power of the banks in Europe, they can compel the EU and Germany to enforce a strict 'austerity' regimen to ensure that all the interest payments from Greece, Italy, France, etc., are promptly paid and in full - even if that austerity regimen means tax hikes, cuts to welfare, etc., which end up destroying those countries economically. (This, of course, leads to a vicious circle: a country with 25% employment and zero economic growth is unlikely to reap in much of tax revenue, and so will be less likely to be able to pay its interest bill). The sensible thing would be, of course, for the Greek and other afflicted governments to default, and skip one or two payments until things improve - as they inevitably will. But it's axiomatic, for the EU and Germany, that the banks have to be insulated from losses, i.e., write-downs on the value of their bond holdings.

It goes without saying that such a policy hurts the Greek working-class: and the peculiar thing about the above defining characteristics of the Golden Dawn is that they are true of the communist parties, and, historically, the fascist parties of the 1920s and 1930s. What we have, in Golden Dawn, the Greek communist KKE and the splinter-communist Syriza, is a surge towards socialism - radical socialism - if we could define the above 1)-4) as being 'socialist'. The conventional wisdom is that socialists of one stripe or another will do well during a period of economic downturn, and the election results in Greece and France this year bear this out.

There are, of course, real differences between the Far Right socialists, and the socialists of the Far Left. The main difference is on the question of immigration. To explain this, we will have to backtrack a little, and look at some recent social history.

Since the 1960s, Europe - and the West - has been ruled by a dominating clique, which has manifested itself in politics, journalism, academia, entertainment. The intent of that clique has been to eradicate the majority white population of every white, European country and replace it with non-whites drawn from the Third World. Liberalisation of immigration from the Third World, mass indoctrination of the white populace with the virtues of 'multiculturalism', 'diversity', being nice to minorities, etc., have been put to use for that purpose. The end result of mass immigration is that whites, in cities from Oslo to London to Athens, are slowly being pushed out of the lands they have lived in for hundreds, if not thousands, of years: and this is the goal of the anti-white clique. They want, for instance, for a country like Sweden to be a wonderful smorgasbord of diversity: Afghans, Iraqis, Somalis, Kurds, Chinese, Pakistanis, will occupy Sweden from coast to coast, while the Swedes themselves will be reduced to a minority, living in the forests and mountains of the far-flung rural areas (until the cities, bulging to the brim with immigrants, expand and reach those areas too). It is a process of replacing one race by another. Non-white countries such as Kenya, Japan, Guatemala, of course, aren't expected to undergo the same process: 'diversity' is a unique gift - or punishment - reserved by the white man, to pay him back for centuries of colonialism and exploitation of the Third World. The colonies of Europe - Canada, South Africa, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, the USA - are especially deserving of punishment, because, to the anti-white clique, their existence represents an obscenity: these countries were founded on the enslavement, rape, despoliation and dispossession of the natives, who were at a far higher level of moral and spiritual attainment than the white settlers.

Of course, the anti-white clique won't achieve the 'maximalist' (to borrow a Trotskyite term) program of wiping the white race out altogether. But they will manage to increase the non-white populations of the cities of Europe (and the European colonies) to bursting point, and thus, proportionally, reduce the white populations to a minority there. This is already happening in the traditionally white working-class towns of Bradford, Birmingham and Leicester. (Ideally, the whites should be ethnically cleansed at gunpoint: just as what happened to the Germans of Eastern Europe in the late 1940s, the Palestinians in Palestine in 1948, the various Balkans ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavian provinces of the early 1990s. But that can't happen, of course, so the anti-white clique resorts to other means).

It's a grim scenario, of course, especially given that none of the élites in the West (who are the custodians of the destiny of their countries) will or can do anything about it. The mainstream liberal media is beginning to acknowledge, of course, that this process is taking place, and is cautiously suggesting that the policy should be stopped for the time being; but acknowledgements and suggestions are no substitutes for doing, i.e., none of these conservative critics are willing to fight to have their views enforced, and none of them can even suggest voting for the parties (such as the BNP) who make opposition to immigration a priority. It's become clear that conservatism just doesn't have the strength, morally, intellectually, physically, to 'defend the West' at this crucial juncture. This is shown by their policies: the conservative government of the Tory David Cameron was elected, in part, on his pledge to cut British immigration to the 'tens of thousands', but immigration into Britain is even higher than when he took office.

Amazingly, conservatives turn into mush liberals when it comes to immigration. While American conservatives are prepared to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, drop bombs on Libya, water-board Arabs, cut welfare spending to 'balance the budget', they just won't countenance the deportation of illegal Mexican immigrants (it would 'break up families') or even cut off all the public housing, health care, education and other benefits which, in part, serve to induce illegals to stay in America.

As for the Left, well, they are completely out of the loop. The truth is that while the present-day ideology of the anti-white clique seems, on the surface of it, to be left-wing - with all its ranting and raving over the 'crimes of colonialism', its declarations that the 'white race is the cancer of history', and so forth - it is something totally new in the annals of the Left: we don't find a hint of it in Lenin, Bakunin, Marx, Engels, Trotsky, the Fabian socialists, Samuel Gompers and so forth. Conservatives like to blame modern-day multiculturalism and multiracialism on the 'Cultural Marxism' of the 'Frankfurt School', but one really can't find an endorsement of ethnic cleansing (of whites), any rationale, in the works of Adorno, Marcuse, Fromm, Walter Benjamin (one does find the standard-issue liberal bilge, regarding the rights of oppressed Negroes in the American South, of course, but that's another thing entirely). Likewise, where, in the offical Soviet communist manual, The Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism (1963), is the suggestion of such a policy? There is the demand, by the communists, for 'revolutionary violence' in that manual (and in Soviet and Maoist propaganda from that time), but no demand for the disappearance of the French from France, or the British from Britain.

The Left, today, could be expected (given its ideology) to defend the interests of the white-working classes in the West and elsewhere: undoubtedly, the policies of the anti-white clique have caused great suffering to the traditional constituency of the Left (statistics show that 9/10ths of British jobs created in the Blair-Brown years went to immigrants, for example). But this isn't the case: the Left simply refuses to see any suffering. The Left believes that there is an infinite font of resources in the West - jobs, housing, education, health care, etc. - which should be shared, gratis, with the entire Third World; there's an infinite capacity which should be given to everybody. What's more, if we in the West take in immigrants and put them up in public housing, and on welfare benefits, we'll be giving them a better life - and protecting them from becoming child soldiers, or, if they are female children, from having their genitals mutilated. Those on the Right, who say that there aren't enough resources to go around, or that the immigrant groups will continue to practice female genital mutilation and honour killings (no matter what country they are living in), are just mean, nasty and horrid people.

In addition to all that, both the Left and Right are aesthetically blind. They don't see, they don't perceive, they don't understand, the concept of human degradation. There is something tremendously ugly, and sad, about immigrants sneaking into Britain, from across the Channel, by clinging to the undersides of lorries, by hiding themselves in garbage containers in trucks, or trucks carrying vats of chocolate; there is something tremendously ugly about immigrants (of a certain ethnic group I won't name, due to political correctness) of going about Melbourne, wearing ill-fitting, shabby clothes (which look as though they were stolen from the back of a barrow), sleeping, 20 people to a house, five people to a single bed, cheating utility and phone companies by not paying their bills, shopping, with their arranged marriage (and possibly co-sanguinary) wives, in the junk shops and haggling over the smallest dollars and cents... To a certain extent, life, when it gets to that level, is not worth living: these people degrade the quality of life in the West, and they are degrading to the human spirit. 'What, "spirit"?', say our establishment politicians: 'The only "spirit" I believe in is that of the Anglican Church, or the Catholic Church, which accepts all races equally, especially brown ones: your "spirit" sounds to me quite fascist'.

And so we are, in the West in 2012, at an impasse.

All of the above explains why, despite their turn towards socialism in the recent elections, the French and the Greeks didn't give complete victory to the socialist Left. As Gilad Atzmon shrewdly points out, it's strange how the Left embraces Palestinians expressing Palestinian nationalism, but can't abide by a Frenchwoman who expresses French nationalism - Marine Le Pen. But this is because, I argue, that the Left now accepts, along with the Right, all the presuppositions of the anti-white clique.

Given all this, it has become clear, to me, at least, that the West needs to adopt the most uncompromising and radical measures to save itself in its current predicament. I mean this well and truly: 'radical' comes from the Latin word radix, meaning 'from the root', and we need pull up the existing political, economic and social structures from the roots. In practical terms, this means - for Britain - the suspension (perhaps permanent) of parliament and democratic elections, the ascent to power of a new, nationalist-minded élite, and the conversion of the existing British constitutional system away from constitutional monarchy and towards a republic. In turn, the power of the City of London - Britain's financial hub - will have to be curtailed, for the future nationalist politicians simply can't be subject to the whims of the global bond and stock markets.

In any real 'dialectical' change, or evolution, the Marxists argue, the new order has to contain traces of the old: it is, in short, a 'sublation' - the present order contains the seeds of the future, within itself, and so revolution is a matter of bringing out the possibilities and making the new order sprout and grow. There is a clean break, but, at the same time, it is not the case of an old order (e.g., constitutional monarchy, liberal democracy, capitalism) being swapped for something unrelated and arbitrary. The white British simply won't convert, en masse, to fundamentalist Islam and ditch liberal democracy for Islamic theocracy: the tendencies, cultural and historical, towards radical Islam simply aren't there in the British people (whereas, in the case of the Egyptian people, they are). Whereas what I am advocating for the British is there. Britain was a republic, for ten years, under Cromwell, and parliament was suspended during his reign. But, aside from the historical precedent, the British soul, British history, British culture, contains within it radical socialism - a socialism which could form the basis of the new constitutional order. And it must, because radical ideologies such as Islam aren't an option.

The same goes for Australia: 'white man's socialism', the socialism of the old Labor Party, and the old Australian 'bush' nationalists, is still there within us, deep below the surface. But, in order to implement it, it needs to be Europeanised: not only does it need to be Marxianised, it needs to be fascist-ised. In other words, it needs to take into account recent (and by recent, in this case, I mean within the last hundred years) political and intellectual developments on the Continent.

Marx's Kapital doesn't contain the blueprint of a future communist order, as readers of it know: it attempts to describe the existing state of affairs and portends a clean break from them - the ruptures which will lead to the birth of a new order. But it doesn't describe how things ought to be, and this is one of the problems faced by the new rulers of communist regimés: where were the prescriptions, in Marx, for the new order, how would we know what socialism looks like? Engels, it is true, predicted the disappearance of money, etc., under socialism and communism, but, in general, communist theory always hedged its bets when it came to the future. It was 'dialectical', which is to say, the changes would come about organically and develop out of the old. In contrast, the so-called Utopian socialists devised detailed schemes, and drew up blueprints, for the future socialist order and how the communities in that order would live. Henceforth, the schemes would be imposed without taking circumstances and limitations into account. It was the flexibility of Marx's 'scientific' socialism, in contrast to the apriorism and inflexibility of his scheme-making 'utopian' socialist forebears, which gave it a main advantage. And this is something we nationalists, in 2012, ought to imitate.

In short: in politics, we are like painters and sculptors, who have to work with the materials we are given. We can't go beyond the given. At the same time, as revolutionaries, we recognise the need for a clean and decisive break. Revolutions make use of the existing material - the cultural, historical, economic and political tendencies - to hand. At the same time, they are brought about by élites, minorities, standing on the outside of the prevailing order. No politician, no matter what ideology, accepts the existing facts 'as they are', otherwise, he wouldn't be in politics. So, revolutions are made, they are brought about. It is our task, as revolutionary nationalists, to manufacture the conditions for revolution.

That doesn't mean that we can ignore the 'objective conditions'. One only has to recall the case of Che Guevera, who went about 'making revolution', half-cocked, in Congo and Bolivia, and failing miserably because he out-and-out ignored the 'objective conditions', didn't bother to investigate what the working-classes and peasantry in those countries were about, and so forth. A more recent example of (what the Marxists call) 'left-adventurism' is the anti-globalisation riots - the black bloc anarchists who go around assaulting police and smashing the windows of Starbucks and McDonalds - and the Occupy movement. (One really can't blame the anarchists or the Occupiers for their spontaneous disorders, given that conventional Marxism has failed the Left so dramatically). In other words, we mustn't think that inducing riot, rebellion and insurrection, leading to armed conflict - just as see in the Arab world right now - automatically adds up to revolution, although such things can, of course, occur naturally in the midst of a revolution.

The good news is that the white peoples of the West are gradually waking up to the fact that they are being shafted by the anti-white clique. They are being told, around the clock, by the establishment media, intellectuals and politicians, to pay no heed to their ethnic dispossession, but, as recent electoral events in Europe show, they are no longer listening. But they are a long way from revolting. Mainly this is because the nationalists and the Far Right have to get their house in order.

Part of the problem is that we, in our economic thinking, gravitate, by force of habit, to ideas which show a petit-bourgeois propensity. How many times do we hear a nationalist say, 'Oh, I agree with you, companies like Goldman-Sachs are bad, globalisation is bad, all the companies listed on the DJIA or the All Ordinaries Index are bad - big business, corporations, global conglomerates, are all bad. But the small proprietor, the white middle-class, the subsidised EU-farmer - we mustn't hurt them! We must go back to small business: artisans is what we need. We must have more handicrafts...'. Such thinking is reflective of traditional anarchism and socialism (the pre-Marxist 'utopian' socialism), and the petit-bourgeois class origins of such thinking, and it still holds an enormous allure for the Far Right today. It's something to be avoided, an alternative is needed. Really, such splendid experiments in socialism such as Herman Goering's Four-Year-Plan, and his Hermann Goering Steelworks, would never have gotten off the ground with such thinking.

I myself don't have an economic plan, and don't think nationalists need one. At the same time, we must have a complete break from the existing political, social and economic order, and that entails a rejection, or revision, of the existing capitalist system. The success of Golden Dawn is a step in that direction: despite their stated economic platform, they are a symptom of the ruptures and upsets predicted by Marx in Kapital. Perhaps they are a sign of the new socialist order as well.